Hacker News Reader

Comment by aw3c2 | Hacker News Reader

That was pretty misleading. Not Android was the culprit, but the carrier's crapware.

I never understood why people would not actually buy their phones and then decide on a contract or prepaid to go with it? I even bought mine off Ebay in excellent condition and almost full warranty (2 years in Germany) so much cheaper that I still have not reached the difference to the "normal full or subsidized price" with my monthly contract payments.

View on HN

From what I understand, the mobile phone system in the EU works differently than in the US. In the US, almost all phones are bought at carrier-subsidized prices - i.e. much cheaper than buying the phone standalone. The catch is that you have to sign for a 2-year contract with that carrier to get the subsidized prices. The prices for mobile phone plans in the US are much higher because they include the phone subsidy.

And while in theory you could just buy a phone and then decide on a contract, if you do that, you don't get a discount on your plan - i.e. you're still paying for the phone subsidy that you never used. So, buying a phone then buying a contract for it costs even more.

It's a stupid system, but unfortunately the carriers are all evil and don't want to change it because it lets them overcharge and deliver crapware.

For contracts, I think carrier-subsidised handsets are significantly more popular than the cheaper handset-free ones; but both are widely available (a contract of, say, £30/month will be half that price if it excludes the handset).

More popular still are pay-as-you-go deals where the handset is purchased at full price, though this is more popular in the feature phone segment.

When I was looking a few months ago, T-Mobile was the only carrier that actually gave you cheaper plans if you brought your own phone (i.e., they were sane). That's why I'm on T-Mobile now, and couldn't be happier. It's too bad about the AT&T deal...

They also avoid putting crapware on at least some of their phones. The G series is all pretty close to stock with a few reasonable extra apps (Swype and wifi-calling, mostly), a marked contrast to what the same hardware is loaded with when it comes from other carriers.

In the EU (well, I can speak for Greece), you get the phone with carrier subsidies, with year-long contracts. You can choose not to get a phone and deduct an amount off your contract each month.

The carrier-subsidized phones are usually exactly the same as the stock devices. Some carriers install one or two apps (rarely), but I've never seen a carrier-locked phone in the hundreds of devices I've seen. Any carrier-sponsored phone works with any other carrier.

It's your money, anyway.

In France, most carrier subsidized phones are locked to the carrier.

However they must unlock it for free after 6 months.

> In the US, almost all phones are bought at carrier-subsidized prices - i.e. much cheaper than buying the phone standalone. The catch is that you have to sign for a 2-year contract with that carrier to get the subsidized prices. The prices for mobile phone plans in the US are much higher because they include the phone subsidy.

it's the same in most european countries (and has been for a decade or so), and even in countries where this is not allowed (such as belgium), plan prices are not significantly lower.

Although generally you have a sliding scale: most euro countries have laws letting consumer break 2-years contract for a free (which is usually a function of the number of months left on your contract), so you can usually get 12-months contract (lower subsidy => more expensive phones) and no-bind contracts (even lower to no subsidies). They're also generally more expensive per month: having you as a pretty much guaranteed customer for 2 years is much cheaper for the carrier.

There are also bits and pieces of regulation which varies by country. In France for instance, subsidized phones are SIM-locked but carriers must let you unlock it for free after 6 months.

One more fact for your collection: Verizon even subsidizes its prepaid phones. One option I was given to replace a prepaid out-of-warranty feature phone was paying $200 for a new one--though they sell the exact same model with new service for $40. (Ultimately I took a prior-generation refurbished phone for $50.)

It doesn't matter why this person's experience sucked with Android, it still did. An iPhone 'just worked' for this same person.

I know exactly what I'm getting when I get an iPhone no matter where in the world I get it. There's no carrier specific crap. All the models have well known limitations and features. I can trust, for the most part, any apps I get from the app store.

It's great that you can go onto eBay and get a used phone (or possibly new), but how scalable is that? Would you trust your mother or grand mother to do the same? How much effort did it take between bidding, paying and activating compared to the effort that most people are willing to put into getting a new phone?

I don't think Android is going to be a failure -- the phones will always be around. They have basically taken the place of Nokia's feature phones.

At the end of the day, Google should have maintained more control to guarantee a better user experience. They had an opportunity to follow in Apple's footsteps and put another nail in the carrier's control coffin.

Google having more control over Android would make a better UX and platform, but it would not have allowed for Android to take off as it has. One of the key reasons it's selling is because it's not an iPhone. It's open, and comes with all the pros and cons that openness entails.

Normal customers don't care that a phone is 'open' any more than a non-gearhead cares if a car is user-serviceable. They don't even really know what that means.

Tech folks need to stop thinking of 'open' as a selling point when it comes to consumer products and focus on the actual experience for a consumer.

It isn't a selling point for the customer. It is a selling point for the vendor, which is frankly much more important than user experience when it comes to getting phones in hands.

Tech nerds need to stop thinking that UX is anything more than at best a bonus when it comes to a platform's success.

Every Android phone on 3 carriers I have used has random crashes and initially laughable battery life. If the only option you have is "carrier crapware", guess what? It sucks. And i'm never paying $500+ for an unlocked phone (I would buy something that is actually functionally useful like a Sony Ericsson)

It is an Android (the brand) problem though, because that's how Android is presented in the marketplace. When it takes rooting the phone to make it usable, that automatically means that most of the people who buy Android phones are going to get a sub-par experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com